Gunner's security question

[tyrodtom]

What methods were used to keep WW1 2 seaters gunner in the aircraft during action?

I've seen several pictures and paintings that it appears the gunner was standing while using the guns with several aircraft.

And then there's the F.E.2b, that the gunner had to stand with a foot on each side of the cockpit to use the gun that could cover the rear, I can see no way to make a harness that could make that safe.

Were they all just depending on their grip on the gun. or whatever else was close to grab, and trust that the pilot wouldn't do anything too abrupt ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would think they would have some sort of "monkey harness". It's what we used so that we could move about the cabin with the doors open. Can't imagine not having something similar in WW1.

 

[tyrodtom]

I would think so too, but I've never seen it mentioned.

But I have seen several accounts of 2 seaters loosing their gunner as they went down out of control. They fell out, or they jumped.
Of course it wasn't uncommon for pilots also to jump from burning aircraft in that era. Some preferring a quick death from a ground impact rather than a slow burning death.


Just think of what that FE. 2b gunner had to do to use that rear firing gun between his cockpit and the pilot.

 

[stona]

Maybe an 'anti cavorting chain', really a lanyard and belt arrangement to allow the wearer to move about without falling from the aircraft ?
This was the restraint for the observer in a Swordfish.
Cheers
Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe an 'anti cavorting chain', really a lanyard and belt arrangement to allow the wearer to move about without falling from the aircraft ?
This was the restraint for the observer in a Swordfish.
Cheers
Steve

A monkey harness...

 

[buffnut453]

Or maybe some woven or metallic strap-like construction with clips at either end that could be affixed both to the aircraft and to the gunner?

Sorry (to both Stona and Adler)...couldn't resist.

Yeah...I know "A monkey harness!"

 

[tyrodtom]

I had a monkey harness in the OH-6 too, was saved by it once for sure.

But I've looked several places and so far I can find no mention of a harness, or any other method of restraint for WW1 gunners.

I've seen a lot of reports of WW! action, and seen it mentioned several times about observer/gunners departing falling aircraft, not just burning aircraft they might have deliberately jumped from, but also aircraft that were falling out of control only.

I know they might have had many methods of keeping them secure.

But what DID they have ?
Either they had a safety harness and didn't use it a lot, or they were unhooking it pretty often and jumping.

The question came to me when I saw the picture of a FE-2b in the BP Defiant thread, and saw the gun between the front and rear cockpits for rear defense in the pusher aircraft. I realized the only way the gunner could use that gun was get up and stand on the cockpit rim, totally outside the aircraft.

 

[mikewint]

Neither can I. The caption reads:
A soldier poses with a Hythe Mk III Gun Camera during training activities at Ellington Field, Houston, Texas in April of 1918. The Mk III, built to match the size, handling, and weight of a Lewis Gun, was used to train aerial gunners, recording a photograph when the trigger was pulled, for later review, when an instructor could coach trainees on better aiming strategies.

 

[Shortround6]

Heavy belt around waist is part of harness or fashion statement?

Modern day

Harness/belt blends in colorwise or goes under leather flying coat?

 

[tyrodtom]

It looks pretty much like the monkey straps we used in my time, except they were nylon webbing.
Also looks like the harness that comes with tree stands, and nobody uses.

 

[mikewint]

From the book World War I by Adriane Ruggiero:

 

[mikewint]

I really don't think that SAFETY was a concern. While those harnesses may have been worn under the leather I kinda doubt it. Take the British BE9
It was a pretty simple idea. During World War I, the British Royal Aircraft Factory, or RAF, wanted a fighter plane with guns that could shoot forward. So they took an existing plane and stuck a gunner onto the front of it. Seems like a pretty straightforward solution.
The only problem ...
Their method of adding a gunner? Strapping him in front of the propeller in a plywood box that earned the nickname "the pulpit," presumably to try to remind the gunner that he was about to meet God.
Should the BE. experience even the lightest crash, the gunner was guaranteed to be crushed by the firing V8 engine mounted to his back. It honestly didn't matter, however, since the gunner was much more likely to be sucked into the whirling propeller blades like a long before then.
Because there was no shielding used whatsoever between the gunner and the roaring vortex of death behind him, anything loose on his person, be it a scarf, wallet or arm while swinging the gun, was instantly sucked into the propeller blades. The gunner had no choice but to literally hold on for dear life until he either tired out or landed. And because the screaming engine was placed between the helpless gunner and the plane's oblivious pilot, the gunner had no way to communicate his fatigue to the pilot until the spray of his guts hit him in the face.

 

[stona]

That really was a bad idea. To be fair only one was built, or rather adapted. It does however illustrate the experimental nature of aircraft development in WW1 which carried on into the inter war years. Those pouring scorn on a concept like the the turret fighter have the benefit of hindsight. There were many other concepts, some far more odd to us with our hindsight, that didn't make it into production. Some even make the B.E.2c/B.E.9 look quite sensible.
Cheers
Steve

 

[mikewint]

Agreed and it also illustrates that safety was a very minor concern. The aircraft themselves illustrate this
1. Flimsy aircraft: get into too steep a dive---> no wings
2. No armament at first. The French fitted bullet deflectors to stop MG bullets shooting the propeller to pieces, the Germans invented a synchronizing gear so it fired between propeller blade revolutions.
3. The British fliers lacked parachutes, which were classed as cowardly. German balloon observers had parachutes and soon German fliers did too.
4. Navigation. There were no radios to help ask directions, no GPS. Pilots had to recognize where they were. This was hard when the world below you was a mess of mud and trenches all looking alike.
5. Petrol tanks: these weren't self-sealing and, to get a good center of gravity, were often under or in front of the pilot.
6. Castor oil. Aircraft engines and maintenance was a new science, and primitive oils were often used, such as castor oil. This meant that pilots were often flying while breathing a fog of castor oil, some suffered from chronic digestive problems.
7. For the Allies, poor aircraft and aircraft design. At the start of the war, Fokker (a Dutchman) had offered his designs to the Allies. They refused, so the Germans got them.

 

[tyrodtom]

Not so much safety, but having to constantly replace gunners must have been a little inconvenient .
But of course they was having constantly replace everybody fighting during WW1.

But the war in the trenches was so bad they still had volunteers just waiting for their chance.

Men who choose to fly during war might be a little over influenced by their testosterone. Another name for the monkey harness, or strap, during my time, was the chicken strap. Some guys actually complained about it, wouldn't use it unless threatened with a Art. 15.
I wonder if the WW1 gunners were the same.

As a X gunner myself, I guess you could say I have a professional interest.

 

[Shortround6]

In part the weak construction/lack of protection was due to weak engines.
A 100hp Green inline six in 1914 went about 440lbs.
A 120hp Beardmore 6 went about 545lbs.
both water cooled engines so add????
The Early 7 Cylinder Clerget was good for 80-90hp for a mere 230-240lbs but these rotary engines (and some inline aircooled ones)
had truly horrendous fuel consumption and for long flights (several hours) the extra fuel began to close the gap in weight to the water cooled engines.
9 cylinder Clerget as used in Sopwith Camel went about 380lbs for 130hp and needed about 37 gal imp of fuel and almost 6 gallons oil for a 2.5 hour flight, Rotaries also had very poor throttle control. Most used an ignition kill switch to reduce power for landing. Momentary killing the ingition to reduce the power although some engines/aircraft could adjust the number of cylinders that cut out to keep it from being all or nothing. But raw fuel and oil still came out the exhaust.

 

[tyrodtom]

Maybe by the norms of the times, a gunners job with or without a harness might not have felt so dangerous.

After all on the ground, thousands of men at a time were walking ( not running) across fields straight into machine guns, cannons, rifles and anything else the enemy chose to use, with only their faith and courage for comfort.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I've looked through all the pics and cutaways I have on WW1 aircraft and the only harness I can find is when the pilots & gunners were seated.

 

[tyrodtom]

Most pictures I've seen shows the gunner as he was during take off, and landing, sitting down.

But when you see films or pictures of them demonstrating use of the gun, a lot are standing up.

On most of the aircraft the upper rim of the cockpit is below hip level, it wouldn't take much of a upset to send you right over the side.
And even if they did have harnesses it probably would have only been leather. Plenty to keep you secure in a seat, but not overly strong for stopping falling bodies.

 

[mikewint]

After all on the ground, thousands of men at a time were walking ( not running) across fields straight into machine guns, cannons, rifles and anything else the enemy chose to use, with only their faith and courage for comfort.

Our modern idea/belief in "cradle to the grave security" was not prevalent in the early 1900s. One has only to look at the horrendous casualty figures for WWI land battles to see how cheaply soldier lives were held by both sides. So the occasional gunner tossed out of the aircraft was "regrettable" but not disastrous. Consider the RFC aircraft losses during Bloody April